An analysis of
Team Matching
UCL Arts and Sciences Project
Amy Kirk-Smith | Lena Fuldauer
Lara Gregorians | Oliver Rutherf...
“As soon as people start thinking about
what they are thinking about,
the experiment becomes flawed.”
- Vincent Walsh (2013...
THE QUESTION
“IS TEAM MATCHING MORE EFFECTIVE THAN STANDARD
MATCHING IN TERMS OF INCREASING DONATIONS AND
PARTICIPATION?”
WHAT IS MATCHING?
– IF YOU DONATE ONE POUND, YOUR
COMPANY MATCHES YOU BY DONATING ONE POUND,
THEREFORE YOUR CAUSE RECEIVES...
Procedure:
OUR EXPERIMENT
•  Anonymous online survey
•  What’s good about a survey?
–  Eliminates time and budget constrai...
The Aim
“IS TEAM MATCHING MORE EFFECTIVE THAN STANDARD
MATCHING IN TERMS OF INCREASING DONATIONS AND
PARTICIPATION?”
DATA ANALYSIS
We split the gathered data sets into four foci:
Effect of standard matching
on regular donors

Effect of stand...
RESULTS
On average...
new donors donated 10 tokens more with
standard matching, & 13 tokens more
with team matching
regula...
EVALUATING
PARTICIPATION
42.8% of donors who had not initially
donated did so with a standard matching
incentive.
66.7% of...
CONCLUSION
From the data gathered for new donors:
a team matching incentive was relatively
more effective than standard mat...
What about for regular donors…
Graph showing response of regular donors to different matching
incentives (modified)
140

y (blue) = 1.06x + 7.56

Tokens do...
EVALUATION OF
REGULAR DONORS
Among the people surveyed:
those who donated less than 5.2% of their monthly
allowance to cha...
CONCLUSION
From the data gathered for regular donors:
a standard matching incentive was more effective on people
who donate...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Analysing Team Matching | UCL Arts and Sciences & Givey UK Project

363 views

Published on

Published in: Travel, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
363
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Analysing Team Matching | UCL Arts and Sciences & Givey UK Project

  1. 1. An analysis of Team Matching UCL Arts and Sciences Project Amy Kirk-Smith | Lena Fuldauer Lara Gregorians | Oliver Rutherford | Virginia Alonso
  2. 2. “As soon as people start thinking about what they are thinking about, the experiment becomes flawed.” - Vincent Walsh (2013)
  3. 3. THE QUESTION “IS TEAM MATCHING MORE EFFECTIVE THAN STANDARD MATCHING IN TERMS OF INCREASING DONATIONS AND PARTICIPATION?”
  4. 4. WHAT IS MATCHING? – IF YOU DONATE ONE POUND, YOUR COMPANY MATCHES YOU BY DONATING ONE POUND, THEREFORE YOUR CAUSE RECEIVES A TOTAL OF 2 POUNDS STANDARD MATCHING – YOUR CAUSE IS MATCHED ONLY IF A CERTAIN % OF YOUR TEAM ALSO DONATES. TEAM MATCHING
  5. 5. Procedure: OUR EXPERIMENT •  Anonymous online survey •  What’s good about a survey? –  Eliminates time and budget constraints –  Larger sample size –  Anonymity increases reliability •  The HIV/AIDS context created is “implicit content” to ensure that awareness of the survey´s purpose did not confound responses
  6. 6. The Aim “IS TEAM MATCHING MORE EFFECTIVE THAN STANDARD MATCHING IN TERMS OF INCREASING DONATIONS AND PARTICIPATION?”
  7. 7. DATA ANALYSIS We split the gathered data sets into four foci: Effect of standard matching on regular donors Effect of standard matching on new donors Effect of team matching on regular donors Effect of team matching on new donors Significance of value of the token | new & regular donors
  8. 8. RESULTS On average... new donors donated 10 tokens more with standard matching, & 13 tokens more with team matching regular donors donated 6.90 tokens more with standard matching, & 8.93 tokens more with team matching
  9. 9. EVALUATING PARTICIPATION 42.8% of donors who had not initially donated did so with a standard matching incentive. 66.7% of donors who had not initially donated did so with a team matching incentive.
  10. 10. CONCLUSION From the data gathered for new donors: a team matching incentive was relatively more effective than standard matching in terms of increasing both participation and amount donated as a new donor
  11. 11. What about for regular donors…
  12. 12. Graph showing response of regular donors to different matching incentives (modified) 140 y (blue) = 1.06x + 7.56 Tokens donated after matching incentive 120 y (green) = 1.11x + 4.83 100 Lineal(Standard matching) y=x 80 Lineal(y=x) 60 40 Lineal(Team maching) 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Tokens donated before any matching incentive The y=x line shows the behaviour if neither starndard or team matching had any effect on the donor’s charitable behaviour.
  13. 13. EVALUATION OF REGULAR DONORS Among the people surveyed: those who donated less than 5.2% of their monthly allowance to charity responded more effectively to a standard matching incentive. while those who donated more than 5.2% of their monthly allowance to charity responded more effectively to a team matching incentive. meaning that…
  14. 14. CONCLUSION From the data gathered for regular donors: a standard matching incentive was more effective on people who donated relatively fewer tokens to charity while a team matching incentive was more effective on people who donated more tokens to charity. Meaning that there was not one type of matching that was ultimately more effective than the other. In our experiment, the decisive factor appears to be the amount of tokens that they are initially donating to charity.

×